When I was young, my parents taught me an old rhyme: "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me." Yes, there are variations on this, but I was taught "break" and "hurt". The lesson I learned was to ignore what people say but pay close attention to what they do.
There's a reason they taught me this rhyme. It was because I was a target for the unreasoning hatred of others - not because of what I did but because of who and what I am.
I am about to reveal something about my past that very few people know. It is something I have been ashamed of for most of my life, and something I had no control over. But it has given me direction in my life and is a constant reminder of that rhyme.
When I was 6 years old and the only child, we moved from Brooklyn to a small town in northern NJ (for now, I won't name the town). Why my father chose that town has always been a mystery to me. The predominant religion in that town was Dutch Reformed, and most of the churches were closely aligned with other churches in South Africa. There were a couple of other churches, but nothing outside mainstream Christianity. The town had no "people of color" (I really hate that phrase, but it's appropriate here). We moved in, and I almost immediately began feeling the pressure of prejudice and hatred.
I am a Jew.
It didn't take me long to discover that I was the only Jewish child in the entire school system. We were the only Jewish family in town.
The taunting began immediately and continued from 2nd grade all the way thru graduation from High School. By that time there were 3 Jewish children in the school system: me, my younger brother (who was born the year we moved into town), and a boy from a second Jewish family (who moved out of town only a couple of years later).
Taunting. Teasing. "Christ killer." "Jew-boy". And I'm going to put this into print even though it will offend some folks, because it was what I was called: "White n-gger".
My lunches were stolen, I was physically intimidated and knocked to the ground many times. The teachers made a point of calling on me when they knew I didn't have the answer, just so they could embarrass me in front of the rest of the class and be friends with the other students and their parents (how many times did I hear "Good one, Miss whatever" when the bell rang, accompanied by laughter - including from the teacher).
I took up clarinet. During annual blind auditions for the school band, I always won either 1st or 2nd chair in the school's Wind Symphony. I took up the saxophone. During annual blind auditions for the jazz band, I always won 1st chair alto sax. One day, the band teacher handed me an oboe - and, after a moment of adjusting my embouchure (how you place your lips) around the double-reed, I played a scale and a short exercise. The band teacher was pleased - he was the only one, tho.
The other members of the band weren't pleased or congratulatory at my ability to play almost any reed instrument handed to me. They were angry and jealous - and it only made my time worse. Instead of band practice being a place I could be with peer musicians, it became a place where I drew even more attention as "that [expletive] Jew boy".
Why am I telling you this story?
Because I grew up knowing that words are meaningless unless followed up by action. Words can be ignored. The people who speak angry words usually don't follow up those words with actions. And when it's only one or two jerks calling someone a horrible epithet, the situation will end when either the jerks or the target walk away from each other.
Now to the heart of the matter:
What I was subjected to was - and this is the exactly correct word - racism. The insults, mistreatment, threats, and school hallway knock-downs ("Oh, sorry, Jew-boy") were almost exactly what black children were experiencing during the 60's when busing was considered a "workable remedy" to the SCOTUS Brown decision. Intentional mistreatment, being knocked against lockers or knocked down on the floor, being physically attacked for no reason - and all because you are different.
I know what racism feels like. I was a target during my entire 2-K schooling (which is why I have never attended a high school reunion, for obvious reasons). I spent my preteen and teen years in a town where I had no friends and where I was hated for no good reason at all - other than the simple fact that I was different.
What's my point?
Those who scream "!!1!RACISM!!11!!" at everything they don't like to hear should calm down and recognize the difference between actual racism and boorish/rude words. Yes, there are verbal tropes that are highly offensive, and "send them back" (which isn't what Trump tweeted) does reflect back to at least one trope. But think on this: in 1854, Lincoln said that his first instinct would be “to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia” https://www.history.com/news/5-things-you-may-not-know-about-lincoln-slavery-and-emancipation) Does this make Lincoln a racist?
The "Jim Crow" laws were passed to enforce discriminatory actions against blacks, even by those who didn't want to do it. This was actual institutionalized racism. When the laws were repealed, some continued to discriminate against blacks. Yes, those actions classify as racism. But those were actions - not words.
Jews also felt race-based discrimination as well. The film "Gentleman's Agreement", starring Gregory Peck, relates how Jews were treated by "polite society" just because they were Jews
The days of institutionally-enforced racism are over. There are no laws that permit institutional discrimination based on race, religion, or gender, and plenty of laws that forbid such discrimination (let's leave discussions over cakes for another day).
These are only words. Racism is in the action, not the words. Words can be opposed by more words. If you think someone's words are wrong, respond with better words. Escalating the situation by using ever increasing threats doesn't ease tensions. It aggravates and increases them. Telling your opponent that you intend to be a perpetual thorn in their side (viz. Omar and "the squad") doesn't work - and almost always makes things worse. A stupid response to a stupid statement makes both orators look stupid.
But the thing to remember is that these are all words. Words are not violence.
Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me.
Sunday, July 21, 2019
Friday, July 12, 2019
Facebook - Today's "vast wasteland"
How many of us have the driver of a car loaded with family, and noticed the impenetrable curtain of silence drop as soon as the car starts moving? It happens to me almost every time I get in the car. My loving wife sits in the front passenger seat, takes out her Android phone, opens Facebook, and begins sweeping her finger up and down... up and down... up and down... seemingly looking for something, and spending her time watching videos or looking for videos to watch.
How many of us sit behind the wheel in silence, knowing that anything we say is either ignored or unheard, and knowing that we have been reduced to servants, invisible unless we are needed? When we stop the car after having arrived at the destination, how many of us notice that conversations resume as if they had never stopped?
Happens to me all the time. But today, when she finished watching a video that was accompanied with sound effects and turned to me to tell me what she just watched, I interrupted her with, "I don't care. I don't want to know."
She and I are both in our mid-60s. Her response was to sulk like a 12-year old who had just been told that she couldn't watch her favorite TV show, or talk on the phone for hours with a friend. Or watch Facebook videos for hours. Or that her BFF (in this case, "husband") was completely uninterested in a Facebook video.
Horrors!
Here's my take on it: Facebook has mutated from a social media platform to a platform that infantilizes adults, turning them into mindless juveniles and prompting obnoxious behavior. Like spoiled children, they immediately become angered - as if their toy had been taken away from them.
Childish. Selfish.
She and I used to have long conversations in the car on all kinds of subjects. Her job and her interactions with clients. My job and my interactions with co-workers. Our children and how well they're doing. Friends. Family. Sports. Weather. We laughed together, We expressed our frustrations to each other.
We shared our time together.
Now I sit in silence in the driver's seat. No more conversations. Just the drone of puerile videos that someone thought was funny and posted for others to watch.
Until today, I had to suffer the indignity being ignored in favor of a video that I neither watched nor cared about, nor will watch later, nor will ever care about. Instead of being able to socialize with a human, I was disregarded as unnecessary and unwanted.
This seeming obsession with Facebook has turned an entire generation - actually, multiple generations - of once-thinking adults into churlish children.
Newton Minow, appointed as a commissioner to the FCC by JFK, remarked at a National Association of Broadcasters meeting as to the usefulness - or uselessness - of television. From the Wikipedia page:
We have only replaced one "vast wasteland" with another. Only now, that "vast wateland" is no longer captive to that screen in the living room.
It follows us into our cars as well.
How many of us sit behind the wheel in silence, knowing that anything we say is either ignored or unheard, and knowing that we have been reduced to servants, invisible unless we are needed? When we stop the car after having arrived at the destination, how many of us notice that conversations resume as if they had never stopped?
Happens to me all the time. But today, when she finished watching a video that was accompanied with sound effects and turned to me to tell me what she just watched, I interrupted her with, "I don't care. I don't want to know."
She and I are both in our mid-60s. Her response was to sulk like a 12-year old who had just been told that she couldn't watch her favorite TV show, or talk on the phone for hours with a friend. Or watch Facebook videos for hours. Or that her BFF (in this case, "husband") was completely uninterested in a Facebook video.
Horrors!
Here's my take on it: Facebook has mutated from a social media platform to a platform that infantilizes adults, turning them into mindless juveniles and prompting obnoxious behavior. Like spoiled children, they immediately become angered - as if their toy had been taken away from them.
Childish. Selfish.
She and I used to have long conversations in the car on all kinds of subjects. Her job and her interactions with clients. My job and my interactions with co-workers. Our children and how well they're doing. Friends. Family. Sports. Weather. We laughed together, We expressed our frustrations to each other.
We shared our time together.
Now I sit in silence in the driver's seat. No more conversations. Just the drone of puerile videos that someone thought was funny and posted for others to watch.
Until today, I had to suffer the indignity being ignored in favor of a video that I neither watched nor cared about, nor will watch later, nor will ever care about. Instead of being able to socialize with a human, I was disregarded as unnecessary and unwanted.
This seeming obsession with Facebook has turned an entire generation - actually, multiple generations - of once-thinking adults into churlish children.
Newton Minow, appointed as a commissioner to the FCC by JFK, remarked at a National Association of Broadcasters meeting as to the usefulness - or uselessness - of television. From the Wikipedia page:
"When television is good, nothing — not the theater, not the magazines or newspapers — nothing is better. But when television is bad, nothing is worse. I invite each of you to sit down in front of your television set when your station goes on the air and stay there for a day without a book, without a magazine, without a newspaper, without a profit and loss sheet or a rating book to distract you. Keep your eyes glued to that set until the station signs off. I can assure you that what you will observe is a vast wasteland."
Newton N. Minow, "Television and the Public Interest", address to the National Association of Broadcasters, Washington, D.C., May 9, 1961Today, television as a "public interest" is quickly fading into obscurity. Instead, people spend more and more time on the Internet and less in front of a wall-mounted screen. What Mr. Minow said in 1961 about television is equally as true about the Internet, and especially Facebook, today.
We have only replaced one "vast wasteland" with another. Only now, that "vast wateland" is no longer captive to that screen in the living room.
It follows us into our cars as well.
Monday, May 27, 2019
EU Unraveling
At long last, the EU is dying. And I'm not sorry one bit.
The EU was, from the start, impossible. It was based on the idea that a central commission would set a common economic and immigration policy for each country, with each country relinquishing the majority of its self-determination in favor of the whole. The central EU commission would ensure that "maker" countries would provide the largest amount of funding and control, and the "taker" countries would accede to the decisions made on their behalf.
Sound familiar?
Ever heard of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics?
Ok, let me make it simple: the implementation of the EU was based on ... socialism.
France, England, and Italy have held elections and the "nationalists" have won by a fairly wide margin. The "nationalists" want their countries to regain a large piece of their autonomy - especially over both economic and immigration controls.
Yes, cross-border trade makes sense, and the reduction of cross-border tariffs makes sense as well. But the open-borders policies in France, Germany, and England have resulted in "no-go" zones: regions where localities have instituted their own laws, and where police either cannot go... or are afraid to go.
Quite naturally, the governments in these countries have forbidden press coverage of these violations of their own sovereignty for fear that they would be held to account for the crimes being committed against their own citizens by "refugees" from the Middle East (predominantly Syria). But the internet neither hides nor forgets - and stories of crimes and violence are leaking out to the free world.
The recent elections were no surprise to anyone watching what was really happening inside the EU and who have been reading the reports leaking thru "the iron curtain" (intentional reference) of government censorship of the press. The only surprise is how long the EU "commissioners" managed to keep their fingers in the legislative "dike" to keep it from collapsing - and that collapse has now begun. These elections were only the leading indicator of what's to come: BREXIT, FREXIT, ITEXIT, and several other "exits" from the EU.
Now, I don't think we're seeing a precursor to war or armed revolution... unless the immigrant "refugees" in the "no-go" zones refuse to acknowledge the sovereignty of the country in which they live. In that case, we could see some serious conflicts that can no longer be hidden by the MSM in the US.
Yes. Hidden by the MSM. In the US. Because the EU is an artificially created socialist construct. And the MSM enthusiastically supports Democrats. And Democrats enthusiastically support the same kinds of socialist constructs here in the US.
Imagine what would happen if, instead of showing us how "socialism works" in some EU countries (and we see only those countries with a small and culturally-secure population), the MSM showed the US how socialism is destroying some EU countries from within. How would the Democrats be able to say "We should be more like Sweden!!" if the truth about immigrant violence in Sweden was accurately reported?
The EU is collapsing. Politically, this sucks for the EU.
Politically, it is a huge warning to America.
Now the question is whether Americans will do what's needed to protect American democracy against the encroaching horrors of socialism, or whether they will accept and adopt a political system that has failed every time it has been tried.
The EU was, from the start, impossible. It was based on the idea that a central commission would set a common economic and immigration policy for each country, with each country relinquishing the majority of its self-determination in favor of the whole. The central EU commission would ensure that "maker" countries would provide the largest amount of funding and control, and the "taker" countries would accede to the decisions made on their behalf.
Sound familiar?
Ever heard of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics?
Ok, let me make it simple: the implementation of the EU was based on ... socialism.
France, England, and Italy have held elections and the "nationalists" have won by a fairly wide margin. The "nationalists" want their countries to regain a large piece of their autonomy - especially over both economic and immigration controls.
Yes, cross-border trade makes sense, and the reduction of cross-border tariffs makes sense as well. But the open-borders policies in France, Germany, and England have resulted in "no-go" zones: regions where localities have instituted their own laws, and where police either cannot go... or are afraid to go.
Quite naturally, the governments in these countries have forbidden press coverage of these violations of their own sovereignty for fear that they would be held to account for the crimes being committed against their own citizens by "refugees" from the Middle East (predominantly Syria). But the internet neither hides nor forgets - and stories of crimes and violence are leaking out to the free world.
The recent elections were no surprise to anyone watching what was really happening inside the EU and who have been reading the reports leaking thru "the iron curtain" (intentional reference) of government censorship of the press. The only surprise is how long the EU "commissioners" managed to keep their fingers in the legislative "dike" to keep it from collapsing - and that collapse has now begun. These elections were only the leading indicator of what's to come: BREXIT, FREXIT, ITEXIT, and several other "exits" from the EU.
Now, I don't think we're seeing a precursor to war or armed revolution... unless the immigrant "refugees" in the "no-go" zones refuse to acknowledge the sovereignty of the country in which they live. In that case, we could see some serious conflicts that can no longer be hidden by the MSM in the US.
Yes. Hidden by the MSM. In the US. Because the EU is an artificially created socialist construct. And the MSM enthusiastically supports Democrats. And Democrats enthusiastically support the same kinds of socialist constructs here in the US.
Imagine what would happen if, instead of showing us how "socialism works" in some EU countries (and we see only those countries with a small and culturally-secure population), the MSM showed the US how socialism is destroying some EU countries from within. How would the Democrats be able to say "We should be more like Sweden!!" if the truth about immigrant violence in Sweden was accurately reported?
The EU is collapsing. Politically, this sucks for the EU.
Politically, it is a huge warning to America.
Now the question is whether Americans will do what's needed to protect American democracy against the encroaching horrors of socialism, or whether they will accept and adopt a political system that has failed every time it has been tried.
Tuesday, April 23, 2019
Counting the heads that count
Today, Tuesday 4/23/2019, could change the face of politics in the United States - and no, that's not an exaggeration.
Today, arguments take place in front of the SCOTUS to determine whether the Census - specifically, the short form - should contain a question with earthshaking importance:
"Are you a US citizen?"
The current Constitutional guidance is as follows:
The Legislative branch passes laws and the Executive branch executes them.
Unless the law is extremely explicit about how it is to be executed (most of the time, the law's enforcement mechanism is "the Secretary shall determine"), the Executive enforces the law using its own judgment. If Congress is dissatisfied with how the Executive enforces a law, the remedy is for Congress to rewrite the offending sections of that law. Or, to wait for a different Chief Executive to be elected who will appoint a different Secretary who will then change the rules accordingly.
Today's legal arguments at the SCOTUS aren't over the citizenship question per se, but over the "tactics" used by Wilber Ross (SecCommerce) to insert the question into the Census' "short form" - and whether the question should even appear on the "short form". Did Ross "lie" about his reasons for wanting the question on the short form? Does it matter whether he lied if, as he claims, he has legal authority to design the Census form? If the decision does not violate Constitutional principles (it doesn't) and does not violate existing law (it doesn't), why is it wrong?
The heart of any law is its intent. What is the intent of the Census? Is it to just to count the full number of people in the US? If the Census is used to determine apportionment of seats in the House, then shouldn't the census reflect the number of eligible voters in a district - and not just the number of residents? After all, isn't it the America citizens who elect their representatives - or are we going to allow non-citizens to vote too?
What was Ross's intent? Was it, as some claim, racist to not count non-citizens in the Census? If some people of a specific race are American citizens and are counted, and some people of the same race are not American citizens and are not counted, where is the racism? The Census is published in multiple languages specifically to encourage participation, even by American citizens who cannot speak English. The goal is to be as inclusive as possible - but for American citizens, not foreign nationals (if you're not an American citizen, you are a foreign national by definition).
Let's look at the law, shall we? The regulations regarding the Census are found in 13 U.S. Code. Subchapter 1 Section 4 makes it clear that the "Secretary ... may issue such rules and regulations as he deems necessary to carry out such functions and duties..." And Section 5 reads, in its entirety, "The Secretary shall prepare questionnaires, and shall determine the inquiries, and the number, form, and subdivisions thereof, for the statistics, surveys, and censuses provided for in this title."
Hence, the content of the Census - including the determination of the questions themselves - is a plenary power of the Secretary of Commerce. Unless Ross directly violates the law, his decision is legal, enforceable, and inarguable.
Now let's examine a possible scenario that is directly affected by the results of the Census:
If one district in a large state contains a huge proportion of non-citizens and another district a different state contains a very small proportion of non-citizens, and if both districts contain an equivalent number of eligible citizen voters, why should the larger district be granted more representatives in the US House of Representatives than the smaller district? Aren't the number of eligible citizen voters the same?
One of the goals of the plaintiffs suing against the Census' citizenship question appears to be to allow "undocumented aliens" to be counted. This is tantamount to granting permission for "undocumented aliens" to continue to live in the US without fear of expulsion. This is both wrong and extremely unfair to the aliens who followed the procedures to legally come to the US, receive documentation, and take part in American society.
Moreover, since undocumented non-citizens don't legally file federal taxes (very few do) but receive federally-funded services (very many do), doesn't this mean that the smaller district's eligible voter base citizens might be paying higher taxes to support the larger district's non-voting and possibly-illegal non-citizen population? How is that fair??
My guess is that the government will prevail on the census citizenship question. The Constitution requires a census (Article 1 Section II), but is silent about the contents except for "as established by law". The law already exists in 13 U.S. Code. The only way to deny a citizenship question would be to pass a law modifying 13 U.S. Code to change the plenary powers of the Secretary - which would certainly be vetoed by Trump.
Ross may have gone about this the wrong way, but his intent was clear: to ensure that the enumeration counted only those who qualify for "taxation with representation" - American citizens.
Any other arguments, e.g. "undocumented aliens will hide in the shadows" or "we need to encourage participation in law enforcement activities" is a red herring and has nothing to do with the purpose of the census: enumeration to determine political representation.
Today, arguments take place in front of the SCOTUS to determine whether the Census - specifically, the short form - should contain a question with earthshaking importance:
"Are you a US citizen?"
The current Constitutional guidance is as follows:
The Legislative branch passes laws and the Executive branch executes them.
Unless the law is extremely explicit about how it is to be executed (most of the time, the law's enforcement mechanism is "the Secretary shall determine"), the Executive enforces the law using its own judgment. If Congress is dissatisfied with how the Executive enforces a law, the remedy is for Congress to rewrite the offending sections of that law. Or, to wait for a different Chief Executive to be elected who will appoint a different Secretary who will then change the rules accordingly.
Today's legal arguments at the SCOTUS aren't over the citizenship question per se, but over the "tactics" used by Wilber Ross (SecCommerce) to insert the question into the Census' "short form" - and whether the question should even appear on the "short form". Did Ross "lie" about his reasons for wanting the question on the short form? Does it matter whether he lied if, as he claims, he has legal authority to design the Census form? If the decision does not violate Constitutional principles (it doesn't) and does not violate existing law (it doesn't), why is it wrong?
The heart of any law is its intent. What is the intent of the Census? Is it to just to count the full number of people in the US? If the Census is used to determine apportionment of seats in the House, then shouldn't the census reflect the number of eligible voters in a district - and not just the number of residents? After all, isn't it the America citizens who elect their representatives - or are we going to allow non-citizens to vote too?
What was Ross's intent? Was it, as some claim, racist to not count non-citizens in the Census? If some people of a specific race are American citizens and are counted, and some people of the same race are not American citizens and are not counted, where is the racism? The Census is published in multiple languages specifically to encourage participation, even by American citizens who cannot speak English. The goal is to be as inclusive as possible - but for American citizens, not foreign nationals (if you're not an American citizen, you are a foreign national by definition).
Let's look at the law, shall we? The regulations regarding the Census are found in 13 U.S. Code. Subchapter 1 Section 4 makes it clear that the "Secretary ... may issue such rules and regulations as he deems necessary to carry out such functions and duties..." And Section 5 reads, in its entirety, "The Secretary shall prepare questionnaires, and shall determine the inquiries, and the number, form, and subdivisions thereof, for the statistics, surveys, and censuses provided for in this title."
Hence, the content of the Census - including the determination of the questions themselves - is a plenary power of the Secretary of Commerce. Unless Ross directly violates the law, his decision is legal, enforceable, and inarguable.
Now let's examine a possible scenario that is directly affected by the results of the Census:
If one district in a large state contains a huge proportion of non-citizens and another district a different state contains a very small proportion of non-citizens, and if both districts contain an equivalent number of eligible citizen voters, why should the larger district be granted more representatives in the US House of Representatives than the smaller district? Aren't the number of eligible citizen voters the same?
One of the goals of the plaintiffs suing against the Census' citizenship question appears to be to allow "undocumented aliens" to be counted. This is tantamount to granting permission for "undocumented aliens" to continue to live in the US without fear of expulsion. This is both wrong and extremely unfair to the aliens who followed the procedures to legally come to the US, receive documentation, and take part in American society.
Moreover, since undocumented non-citizens don't legally file federal taxes (very few do) but receive federally-funded services (very many do), doesn't this mean that the smaller district's eligible voter base citizens might be paying higher taxes to support the larger district's non-voting and possibly-illegal non-citizen population? How is that fair??
My guess is that the government will prevail on the census citizenship question. The Constitution requires a census (Article 1 Section II), but is silent about the contents except for "as established by law". The law already exists in 13 U.S. Code. The only way to deny a citizenship question would be to pass a law modifying 13 U.S. Code to change the plenary powers of the Secretary - which would certainly be vetoed by Trump.
Ross may have gone about this the wrong way, but his intent was clear: to ensure that the enumeration counted only those who qualify for "taxation with representation" - American citizens.
Any other arguments, e.g. "undocumented aliens will hide in the shadows" or "we need to encourage participation in law enforcement activities" is a red herring and has nothing to do with the purpose of the census: enumeration to determine political representation.
Friday, April 19, 2019
The dog ate my homework - honest!
"Ok, so here's what happened. I swear it's the truth!
We both knew for several months that my grade would depend on a book report being written by a very good friend of mine, someone who I have known and trusted for years. Someone I had invited to my parties and socialized with, and who I believed was always on my side. Heck, you knew him too and had approved of him as an honest guy.
Yes, it sounded strange for me to depend on someone else for my homework, especially when I used to do all of my homework myself. But this time was different because I already knew everything I needed to know about the book -- or at least I thought I did. No, I never read it, but I was absolutely sure of its author's other books, so I knew what the story line would be. And since I knew that my friend was on my side, I knew what he'd say about it.
And, because of our past relationship, you never felt it was necessary to ask anyone else about this. You depended on me - mainly because I had never given you any obvious reason to not believe me.
I told you what the progress was on the report every day, even though my friend never really told me how it was going. I even kept you informed on some of the exact content that I thought would be in the report. Heck, I even told you what my friend would be discussing in it! I was absolutely certain that I knew how the book report would turn out.
Well, this is what happened. My friend lied to me! He told me that he was doing a book report on the book we had chosen, but he changed his mind about how he was going to review the book and wrote a completely different book report instead! I had no idea that he had changed his mind! I thought he was my friend! I thought I could depend on him!
Don't get mad at me! I wasn't responsible for this letdown! It was that asshole who I thought was my friend. In fact, when the book report was summarized, the guy who gave the summary completely betrayed me!
What a jerk! I hate him! It's his fault that I was wrong! It's his fault that the review came out differently than I planned! I thought I could trust him!
I got an F! Blame him, not me! I should still get an A because I knew what the report should have said! In fact, my friend is wrong! I'm sure I can dig into his report and find the truth!"
"Well, kid, that's what comes from getting participation trophies for attendance rather than learning how to actually play the game. Don't blame your friend for your own failure. He's the one who did the work. Maybe he really does understand the book better than you do.
By the way, that kid you hate? The one you always make fun of? The one on the other side of town? The other one who depended on your friend's book report? He didn't make any assumptions about the book, its author, or its content. He didn't guess about the content of the report, but he did do a lot of his own background research... and got an A."
We both knew for several months that my grade would depend on a book report being written by a very good friend of mine, someone who I have known and trusted for years. Someone I had invited to my parties and socialized with, and who I believed was always on my side. Heck, you knew him too and had approved of him as an honest guy.
Yes, it sounded strange for me to depend on someone else for my homework, especially when I used to do all of my homework myself. But this time was different because I already knew everything I needed to know about the book -- or at least I thought I did. No, I never read it, but I was absolutely sure of its author's other books, so I knew what the story line would be. And since I knew that my friend was on my side, I knew what he'd say about it.
And, because of our past relationship, you never felt it was necessary to ask anyone else about this. You depended on me - mainly because I had never given you any obvious reason to not believe me.
I told you what the progress was on the report every day, even though my friend never really told me how it was going. I even kept you informed on some of the exact content that I thought would be in the report. Heck, I even told you what my friend would be discussing in it! I was absolutely certain that I knew how the book report would turn out.
Well, this is what happened. My friend lied to me! He told me that he was doing a book report on the book we had chosen, but he changed his mind about how he was going to review the book and wrote a completely different book report instead! I had no idea that he had changed his mind! I thought he was my friend! I thought I could depend on him!
Don't get mad at me! I wasn't responsible for this letdown! It was that asshole who I thought was my friend. In fact, when the book report was summarized, the guy who gave the summary completely betrayed me!
What a jerk! I hate him! It's his fault that I was wrong! It's his fault that the review came out differently than I planned! I thought I could trust him!
I got an F! Blame him, not me! I should still get an A because I knew what the report should have said! In fact, my friend is wrong! I'm sure I can dig into his report and find the truth!"
"Well, kid, that's what comes from getting participation trophies for attendance rather than learning how to actually play the game. Don't blame your friend for your own failure. He's the one who did the work. Maybe he really does understand the book better than you do.
By the way, that kid you hate? The one you always make fun of? The one on the other side of town? The other one who depended on your friend's book report? He didn't make any assumptions about the book, its author, or its content. He didn't guess about the content of the report, but he did do a lot of his own background research... and got an A."
Tuesday, April 9, 2019
Voluntarily Self-Destructive Behavior
I try to be even-handed when looking at the nonsense from both political parties, because they are really just 2 sides of the same coin. And, just like a modern penny, it's all glitz on the outside and worthless dross on the inside.
But this is just too good to pass up, so I had to comment on it.
The Democrats hate Trump so much that they've left hypocrisy behind and are heading toward complete insanity. I mean, seriously: when you become so confused that you don't know what you stand for any more, it's probably time for a little self-reflection. Ok, a lot of self-reflection.
Instead, all I see from Democrats is self-indulgence.
As an example, let's look at the #METOO issue (I briefly explore other hashtag-issues later in this essay). Even though a huge number of Holly starlets prostituted themselves for stardom and claim they "regret" what they did (easy to say, now that they're successful), there is validity to being offended by the offer.
But that was then.
Along comes Joe "wandering hands" Biden as a possible 2020 candidate to run against Trump, and Democrats are quick to abandon #METOO to give their favorite VP a pass - for groping women. The excuse is that he's "affectionate", although some women have said that they would have preferred he wasn't that affectionate.
Um....?????? So, it's ok for an old white male Democrat to grope women? Who knew?!?! I need to register as a Democrat so I can be more "affectionate" with women I don't know, sniff hair, put hands on shoulders (and lower), and get a pass on it! Sheesh. Once upon a time, we called guys these guys "perverts". Now, we ignore their perversions if they have the right political ideology.
Let's get honest here. Joe doesn't "touch". He gropes. When the Vice President of the United States is standing behind a woman with his hand on her shoulder (or lower - and there's photographic and video documentation), she's not going to make a public scene. He's the VEEP, after all. She may say something later, but not then and there. And she may be too embarrassed to say anything at all - ever.
The unfortunate truth is that women sometimes feel they did something wrong when they were assaulted by "roaming hands". Sometimes it takes them years to be able to talk about it with someone other than a close friend. And sometimes they do say something - but long past the time when Mr. Law could prosecute the offense.
Note to women: report this behavior immediately. Thank you.
It's one thing to shake a woman's hand in public. And it's almost ok to shake a woman's hand while touching her upper arm in greeting - as long as you don't maintain physical contact for an uncomfortably long time. But groping a woman while standing behind her?
I thought that was verboten in the #METOO era. Apparently not... if you're a "beloved Democrat".
#BLACKLIVESMATTER was killed by Smollett's attempt to start a race war, and buried by Kim Foxx when she dismissed all charges and sealed the case files. The Mayor and Chief of Police of Chicago are furious at the lack of accountability and the failure to prosecute, and much of the nation - including most of the major papers - are being very, er, ungracious towards the entire situation. "Chicago justice", indeed.
So, we learned that only Hollywood black lives matter -- and not the lives of other Chicago blacks who are killed by the hundreds in Chicago.
Note to Chicago's judges: if you stopped releasing these killers on bail and kept them in jail until their trials, your crime rate might actually go down.
#BELIEVEALLWOMEN was also killed by the Democrat 2020 candidates for President when they, almost to a person, looked for reasons to disbelieve Biden's accusers. But then, he's just "Uncle Joe", and the accusers had "other reasons" to make claims against Biden.
If I had an "Uncle Joe" who molested anyone I knew, I'd be the first to let him know, in no-uncertain terms, to keep his damned hands to himself.
So:
Thank you, Democrats, for openly and unreservedly demonstrating what many of us have been calling your deep-seated hypocrisy on almost every important social issue that you started yourselves. I've listed some of them here, but there are many, many more.
Some of us knew that your indignation was nothing but hubris, and your recent behavior has proved it far more effectively than we had hoped.
Heck, we don't need to use the "if it was a Republican" watchword any more: the 2020 candidates have done a great job of tearing each other down. Even Obama warned this group of "candidates" to be wary of turning into a "circular firing squad" and destroying any remaining hopes to win the White House in 2020.
A behavior is either right or wrong. Don't give me this "based on the circumstances" nonsense, or "yeah, but it's his style" crap - or the "but he's a Democrat" excuse. Either it's allowed or it isn't. Either the rules are the same for everyone, or toss out the rule book.
BTW, wasn't it the Democrats who ridiculed Pence for his refusal to be alone with a woman he doesn't know? Interesting that he lives the #METOO standard -- but he's a Republican, so it doesn't count.
But this is just too good to pass up, so I had to comment on it.
The Democrats hate Trump so much that they've left hypocrisy behind and are heading toward complete insanity. I mean, seriously: when you become so confused that you don't know what you stand for any more, it's probably time for a little self-reflection. Ok, a lot of self-reflection.
Instead, all I see from Democrats is self-indulgence.
As an example, let's look at the #METOO issue (I briefly explore other hashtag-issues later in this essay). Even though a huge number of Holly starlets prostituted themselves for stardom and claim they "regret" what they did (easy to say, now that they're successful), there is validity to being offended by the offer.
But that was then.
Along comes Joe "wandering hands" Biden as a possible 2020 candidate to run against Trump, and Democrats are quick to abandon #METOO to give their favorite VP a pass - for groping women. The excuse is that he's "affectionate", although some women have said that they would have preferred he wasn't that affectionate.
Um....?????? So, it's ok for an old white male Democrat to grope women? Who knew?!?! I need to register as a Democrat so I can be more "affectionate" with women I don't know, sniff hair, put hands on shoulders (and lower), and get a pass on it! Sheesh. Once upon a time, we called guys these guys "perverts". Now, we ignore their perversions if they have the right political ideology.
Let's get honest here. Joe doesn't "touch". He gropes. When the Vice President of the United States is standing behind a woman with his hand on her shoulder (or lower - and there's photographic and video documentation), she's not going to make a public scene. He's the VEEP, after all. She may say something later, but not then and there. And she may be too embarrassed to say anything at all - ever.
The unfortunate truth is that women sometimes feel they did something wrong when they were assaulted by "roaming hands". Sometimes it takes them years to be able to talk about it with someone other than a close friend. And sometimes they do say something - but long past the time when Mr. Law could prosecute the offense.
Note to women: report this behavior immediately. Thank you.
It's one thing to shake a woman's hand in public. And it's almost ok to shake a woman's hand while touching her upper arm in greeting - as long as you don't maintain physical contact for an uncomfortably long time. But groping a woman while standing behind her?
I thought that was verboten in the #METOO era. Apparently not... if you're a "beloved Democrat".
#BLACKLIVESMATTER was killed by Smollett's attempt to start a race war, and buried by Kim Foxx when she dismissed all charges and sealed the case files. The Mayor and Chief of Police of Chicago are furious at the lack of accountability and the failure to prosecute, and much of the nation - including most of the major papers - are being very, er, ungracious towards the entire situation. "Chicago justice", indeed.
So, we learned that only Hollywood black lives matter -- and not the lives of other Chicago blacks who are killed by the hundreds in Chicago.
Note to Chicago's judges: if you stopped releasing these killers on bail and kept them in jail until their trials, your crime rate might actually go down.
#BELIEVEALLWOMEN was also killed by the Democrat 2020 candidates for President when they, almost to a person, looked for reasons to disbelieve Biden's accusers. But then, he's just "Uncle Joe", and the accusers had "other reasons" to make claims against Biden.
If I had an "Uncle Joe" who molested anyone I knew, I'd be the first to let him know, in no-uncertain terms, to keep his damned hands to himself.
So:
Thank you, Democrats, for openly and unreservedly demonstrating what many of us have been calling your deep-seated hypocrisy on almost every important social issue that you started yourselves. I've listed some of them here, but there are many, many more.
Some of us knew that your indignation was nothing but hubris, and your recent behavior has proved it far more effectively than we had hoped.
Heck, we don't need to use the "if it was a Republican" watchword any more: the 2020 candidates have done a great job of tearing each other down. Even Obama warned this group of "candidates" to be wary of turning into a "circular firing squad" and destroying any remaining hopes to win the White House in 2020.
A behavior is either right or wrong. Don't give me this "based on the circumstances" nonsense, or "yeah, but it's his style" crap - or the "but he's a Democrat" excuse. Either it's allowed or it isn't. Either the rules are the same for everyone, or toss out the rule book.
BTW, wasn't it the Democrats who ridiculed Pence for his refusal to be alone with a woman he doesn't know? Interesting that he lives the #METOO standard -- but he's a Republican, so it doesn't count.
Saturday, January 5, 2019
The TSA is unnecessary.
The partial shutdown has revealed a giant secret: the TSA is mostly unnecessary and unneeded.
From the San Francisco Airport web page: "Covenant Aviation Security, a private company under contract with the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), provides passenger and baggage screening at SFO."
SF uses a private company to perform security screening. They operate independently, but according to DHS rules.
Maybe it's time to return airport security to the people most capable of doing it: the local airports themselves. And maybe the airlines should take more responsibility for passenger screening.
We keep hearing about TSA "screeners" and how they either fail to do their jobs or use "random checks" to verify whether that is a colostomy bag or a liquid explosive (really!), or doing a full body search on an infant traveling to Orlando with family (really!). Those are the least of the offenses. And because those TSA "inspectors" are government employees, they can neither be sued nor disciplined for their offenses.
Putting security in the hands of private companies would force more sensible security handling. Why? The private employees would be held to a "don't screw up because we'll fire you" standard.
And the private security company will have the freedom to experiment with more advanced and efficient screening measures such as "passenger profiling", something the government can't do because a federal judge will (and has in the past) prevent it.
Lastly, it would mean a reduction in the federal workforce accompanied by a reduction in expenditures at DHS. That's a win-win in anyone's book.
From the San Francisco Airport web page: "Covenant Aviation Security, a private company under contract with the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), provides passenger and baggage screening at SFO."
SF uses a private company to perform security screening. They operate independently, but according to DHS rules.
Maybe it's time to return airport security to the people most capable of doing it: the local airports themselves. And maybe the airlines should take more responsibility for passenger screening.
We keep hearing about TSA "screeners" and how they either fail to do their jobs or use "random checks" to verify whether that is a colostomy bag or a liquid explosive (really!), or doing a full body search on an infant traveling to Orlando with family (really!). Those are the least of the offenses. And because those TSA "inspectors" are government employees, they can neither be sued nor disciplined for their offenses.
Putting security in the hands of private companies would force more sensible security handling. Why? The private employees would be held to a "don't screw up because we'll fire you" standard.
And the private security company will have the freedom to experiment with more advanced and efficient screening measures such as "passenger profiling", something the government can't do because a federal judge will (and has in the past) prevent it.
Lastly, it would mean a reduction in the federal workforce accompanied by a reduction in expenditures at DHS. That's a win-win in anyone's book.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)